Kristi L. Hood v. Frank L. Hood

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 5/6/11 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2091016 K r i s t i L. Hood v. Frank L. Hood Appeal from Etowah C i r c u i t Court (DR-07-594) BRYAN, J u d g e . Kristi L. Hood ("the w i f e " ) e n t e r e d b y t h e Etowah C i r c u i t C o u r t d i v o r c e d h e r f r o m F r a n k L. Hood On appeals from ("the t r i a l a judgment court") that ("the h u s b a n d " ) . J u l y 1 7 , 2007, t h e husband f i l e d a complaint for a 2091016 d i v o r c e from the w i f e . parties had separated married in April I n h i s complaint, on December 28, he a l l e g e d t h a t t h e 1998, they had 2007, t h a t one c h i l d h a d b e e n b o r n o f t h e m a r r i a g e i n A p r i l 2000, and t h a t t h e t r i a l him that court should grant a d i v o r c e f r o m t h e w i f e on t h e g r o u n d s o f i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament, m e n t a l a b u s e , a n d p h y s i c a l a b u s e . The h u s b a n d s o u g h t , among o t h e r things: the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d ; (2) an a w a r d o f t h e p a r t i e s ' r e s i d e n c e Hood D r i v e (1) p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f ("the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e " ) , p a y t h e m o r t g a g e on i t ; agreement t h a t an o b l i g a t i o n t o (3) an a w a r d o f t h e " r i v e r l o t , " w i t h an o b l i g a t i o n t o p a y t h e m o r t g a g e on i t ; p a r t i e s ' personal with property (4) a d i v i s i o n o f t h e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h an a n t e n u p t i a l the p a r t i e s had s i g n e d on December 28, (5) an e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' d e b t s ; of a l l o f h i s bank account accounts ("IRA"); and complaint wife and (7) an o r d e r a l i m o n y i s "moot and f o r e v e r The on subsequently and a c o u n t e r c l a i m his individual 1998; (6) an a w a r d retirement f i n d i n g that the issue of waived." filed an answer t o the husband's for a divorce, asserting adultery and i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament as g r o u n d s f o r t h e d i v o r c e . The w i f e r e q u e s t e d (1) t e m p o r a r y and p e r m a n e n t c u s t o d y o f t h e 2 2091016 parties' child; (2) t e m p o r a r y a n d p e r m a n e n t c h i l d s u p p o r t ; temporary and permanent alimony; exclusive possession (3) (4) t e m p o r a r y a n d p e r m a n e n t of the m a r i t a l residence; (5) an order r e q u i r i n g t h e husband t o pay a l l t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l debts; (6) an a w a r d o f h e r a t t o r n e y ' s relief t o w h i c h she may be e n t i t l e d . counterclaim fees; (7) a n d a n y o t h e r The h u s b a n d a n s w e r e d t h e w i f e ' s f o r a d i v o r c e and a s s e r t e d , among o t h e r things, t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o t h e p a r t i e s ' a n t e n u p t i a l agreement, t h e w i f e h a d no c l a i m t o a l i m o n y o r t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . On O c t o b e r 10, 2007, t h e husband partial summary judgment, entered into antenuptial an alleging filed that agreement, i n the event the p a r t i e s d i v o r c e d , entitled to a judgment i n h i s favor for a the p a r t i e s that waived a l l claims t o the m a r i t a l residence support a motion the wife a n d t h a t he was regarding the wife's partial-summary- j u d g m e n t m o t i o n a n d an a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t of her response, which agreement full a response she a l l e g e d under duress to The t h e husband's in filed had and t o a l i m o n y o r c l a i m s f o r a l i m o n y and an a w a r d o f t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e . wife had that she h a d s i g n e d and t h a t disclosure of h i s assets. the antenuptial t h e h u s b a n d h a d n o t made a On J a n u a r y 3, 2008, t h e t r i a l 3 2091016 court denied t h e husband's motion for a partial summary judgment. A f t e r several continuances, 2009, conducted a hearing a n t e n u p t i a l agreement. on t h e t r i a l c o u r t , on M a r c h 13, the enforceability The o n l y t e s t i m o n y presented of the at this h e a r i n g was f r o m t h e w i f e on t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r she s i g n e d t h e a n t e n u p t i a l agreement w h i l e under d u r e s s . The w i f e testified t h a t she h a d met t h e h u s b a n d i n N a t c h e z , M i s s i s s i p p i , when she was w o r k i n g a s a r e g i s t e r e d n u r s e . the r e c o r d t h a t t h e husband i s a d o c t o r . w i f e had custody the parties that parties began residence living while became e n g a g e d , approximately t o Gadsden At t h a t time, the o f two c h i l d r e n f r o m a p r e v i o u s m a r r i a g e , together N a t c h e z w i t h h e r two c h i l d r e n . on T h e r e i s an i n d i c a t i o n i n they i n the wife's and home i n The h u s b a n d p a i d t h e m o r t g a g e lived together. After t h e h u s b a n d moved t o G a d s d e n , the and, one month b e f o r e t h e w i f e a n d h e r c h i l d r e n moved i n t h e summer home on Hood D r i v e , o f 1998, t h e h u s b a n d p u r c h a s e d t h e i . e . ,the m a r i t a l residence. A f t e r the w i f e moved w i t h h e r c h i l d r e n t o l i v e w i t h t h e h u s b a n d i n t h e marital residence, she d e c i d e d available to rent. 4 t o make h e r home i n N a t c h e z 2091016 The w i f e s t a t e d t h a t the p a r t i e s had never s e t a wedding d a t e , b u t , she s t a t e d , a t m i d n i g h t on December 28, 1998, t h e husband asked her i f she wanted to c o u r t h o u s e t h a t d a y , a n d she a g r e e d . did not learn antenuptial that the agreement until c o u r t h o u s e t o be m a r r i e d . told her that husband they married at the The w i f e s t a t e d t h a t she expected were According t h e y had t o stop get her sign the on to way an to the t o the w i f e , the husband at h i s attorney's office to s i g n " t h e m a r r i a g e p a p e r s " a n d i t was n o t u n t i l she was a t t h e husband's a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e t h a t she r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d w a n t e d h e r t o s i g n an a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t . w i f e was s h o c k e d a t t h e r e q u e s t and began Apparently, the crying. The w i f e s t a t e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s a t t o r n e y h a d discussed t h e a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t w i t h h e r , and she a d m i t t e d t h a t she had understood that i n the event husband "would r e s e r v e had," including testified that the control marital the p a r t i e s over certain things residence. she h a d u n d e r s t o o d t h a t not t h e m a r r i a g e , b u t she a l s o know what pension plans that wife he also and s t o c k s t h a t he stated that the husband 5 The the she w o u l d n o t h a v e a c l a i m t o t h e husband's IRA, p e n s i o n p l a n s , owned b e f o r e divorced owned. she d i d The wife 2091016 a d m i t t e d t h a t w h i l e she was a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s a t t o r n e y ' s office she u n d e r s t o o d t h a t she w o u l d n o t have a c l a i m t o t h e p r o p e r t y listed i n t h e agreement i f t h e p a r t i e s d i v o r c e d . The had sent wife further testified the wife good f r i e n d , " separate t h e husband's attorney and t h e husband t o another a t t o r n e y , " h i s so t h e w i f e attorney. approximately that could review According t h e agreement w i t h a to the wife, t h e h u s b a n d was 10 f e e t away o u t s i d e an open d o o r when she was d i s c u s s i n g t h e agreement w i t h h e r " i n d e p e n d e n t " c o u n s e l . wife The s t a t e d t h a t t h e a t t o r n e y t h a t she met w i t h o n l y b r o w s e d t h r o u g h t h e a g r e e m e n t b e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s were t r y i n g t o make it t o the courthouse before she was crying a n d was i t closed. trying The w i f e t o whisper stated that to the attorney b e c a u s e t h e h u s b a n d l o o k e d mad a n d t h a t she d i d n o t u n d e r s t a n d what the attorney initially, told her. The wife testified that, she r e f u s e d t o s i g n t h e a g r e e m e n t , so she a n d t h e h u s b a n d l e f t t h e a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e a n d r e t u r n e d t o t h e i r home. According have t o t h e w i f e , t h e h u s b a n d t o l d h e r t h a t he w o u l d n o t the nerve to get married a n t e n u p t i a l agreement. the second a t t o r n e y ' s i f she d i d n o t s i g n The p a r t i e s s u b s e q u e n t l y office, the returned to a n d she s i g n e d t h e a n t e n u p t i a l 6 2091016 agreement. The wife claimed that she d i d n o t know t h a t a t t o r n e y was s u p p o s e d t o be h e r a t t o r n e y , the second a n d she s t a t e d t h a t she d i d n o t u n d e r s t a n d t h a t she h a d w a i v e d a r i g h t t o a l i m o n y i n the event the p a r t i e s d i v o r c e d . was n e v e r a b l e t o read The w i f e s t a t e d t h a t she t h r o u g h t h e e n t i r e a g r e e m e n t , b u t she a g r e e d t h a t she knew t h a t she was g i v i n g up r i g h t s b y s i g n i n g t h e a g r e e m e n t t h a t she o t h e r w i s e signed w o u l d have h a d i f she h a d n o t the agreement. According to the wife, her former husband had been t h r e a t e n i n g t o t a k e c u s t o d y o f t h e i r c h i l d r e n b e c a u s e she was living with judgment. fact, the husband in violation of their The w i f e s t a t e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was aware o f t h a t and t h e w i f e thought that, i f she d i d n o t s i g n t h e a g r e e m e n t , she a n d t h e h u s b a n d w o u l d n o t g e t m a r r i e d was a possibility children. three She years agreement divorce that stated o l d at and t h a t she that would loose she signed she h a d no money attorney ages the one a n d to live by r e n t e r s . offered the p a r t i e s ' 7 of her antenuptial a n d no p l a c e b e c a u s e h e r home i n N a t c h e z was o c c u p i e d The h u s b a n d ' s custody h e r c h i l d r e n were the time and t h e r e antenuptial 2091016 agreement i n t o e v i d e n c e , admitted pertinent during that b u t no o t h e r e x h i b i t s were o f f e r e d o r hearing. That agreement states, part: "WHEREAS, the parties to this agreement contemplate e n t e r i n g i n t o the marriage r e l a t i o n w i t h g i n t o the m a r r i a rin each o t h e r , and; "WHEREAS, [the husband], individually o owns c e r t a i n t a n g i b l e and i n t a n g i b l e p r o p e r t y , a l i s t o f w h i c h i s s e t o u t h e r e i n a f t e r i n E x h i b i t 'A', t h e A', n a t u r e and e x t e n t o f w h i c h has b e e n d i s c l o s e d t o t h e [ w i f e ] , and he d e s i r e s t h a t a l l p r o p e r t y now owned o r h e r e a f t e r a c q u i r e d by e i t h e r [ s i c ] s h a l l be f r e e , f o r purposes of testamentary d i s p o s i t i o n , d i v o r c e or o t h e r w i s e , f r o m any c l a i m o f t h e [ w i f e ] , t h a t may a r i s e by r e a s o n o f t h e i r c o n t e m p l a t e d marriage, o t h e r t h a n as s e t o u t h e r e i n : "NOW THEREFORE, i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e p r e m i s e s and t h e m u t u a l c o v e n a n t s h e r e i n c o n t a i n e d , i t i s a g r e e d as f o l l o w s : " 1 . B o t h b e f o r e and a f t e r t h e s o l e m n i z a t i o n o f the m a r r i a g e between the p a r t i e s , [ t h e husband] shall separately retain a l l rights in his own p r o p e r t y , i n c l u d i n g a l l i n t e r e s t , r e n t s and p r o f i t s w h i c h may accrue o r r e s u l t i n any manner f r o m i n c r e a s e s i n v a l u e , and he s h a l l have t h e a b s o l u t e and u n r e s t r i c t e d r i g h t t o d i s p o s e o f h i s p r o p e r t y , f r e e f r o m any c l a i m t h a t may be made by t h e [ w i f e ] by r e a s o n o f t h e i r m a r r i a g e , and w i t h t h e same e f f e c t as i f no m a r r i a g e h a d b e e n consummated b e t w e e n them, w h e t h e r s u c h d i s p o s i t i o n be made by g i f t , c o n v e y a n c e , s a l e , l e a s e ; by w i l l o r c o d i c i l o r o t h e r t e s t a m e n t a r y m e a n s ; by l a w s o f i n t e s t a c y ; o r o t h e r w i s e . Any p r o p e r t y , r e a l , p e r s o n a l o r m i x e d , a c q u i r e d a f t e r t h e d a t e o f s a i d m a r r i a g e s h a l l be considered joint property unless agreed to in w r i t i n g , s i g n e d by b o t h p a r t i e s . 8 in 2091016 II "8. [The w i f e ] has examined t h e f i n a n c i a l s t a t e m e n t s a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a n d made a p a r t h e r e o f as E x h i b i t 'A' and has had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o q u e s t i o n and e x a m i n e a l l i t e m s t h e r e i n , a n d a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t f a i r d i s c l o s u r e h a s b e e n made b y [ t h e h u s b a n d ] , a s contemplated under the p r o v i s i o n s of Section 43-8-72, Code o f A l a b a m a ( 1 9 7 5 ) , as amended. E a c h c e r t i f i e s t h a t he o r she h a s h a d an i n d e p e n d e n t a n d s e p a r a t e c o u n s e l and has been i n d e p e n d e n t l y a d v i s e d and has been given, without limitation, a l l i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u e s t e d . Each f u r t h e r c e r t i f i e s t h a t c o u n s e l has a d v i s e d and i n f o r m e d him o r h e r o f t h e l e g a l e f f e c t s o f t h i s document. "9. I n t h e e v e n t o f t h e d e a t h o f [ t h e h u s b a n d ] or the g r a n t i n g o f a f i n a l d i v o r c e decree, [the w i f e ] s h a l l h a v e no r i g h t t o a n y c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e e s t a t e o f [ t h e h u s b a n d ] b a s e d on s p o u s a l o r m a r i t a l r i g h t s i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d t o maintenance, s u p p o r t , o r p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t s , b y r e a s o n o f o r on account o f d i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e m a r r i a g e , o r by reason of death." ( E m p h a s i s added.) Exhibit A, which was a document attached t o the a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t , was l a b e l e d " P r o p e r t y t o be R e t a i n e d b y [the husband], wife]," Individually, Without and i t i n c l u d e d s i x paragraphs personal property, Any Claims by [ t h e identifying r e a l and as f o l l o w s : " 1 . Any p e n s i o n p l a n , i n c l u d i n g a l l s t o c k s owned p r i o r t o m a r r i a g e o f p a r t i e s , a n d i n c l u d i n g a n y IRA a c c o u n t s , SEP IRA a c c o u n t s o r 401k a c c o u n t s . 9 2091016 "2. A l l checking and/or savings accounts, i n c l u d i n g money m a r k e t a c c o u n t s i n d i v i d u a l l y owned by [ t h e h u s b a n d ] , p r i o r t o m a r r i a g e o f t h e p a r t i e s . "3. A l l jewelry owned by [the husband], i n c l u d i n g j e w e l r y p a s s e d down t o s a i d [husband] b y his parents, and/or g r a n d p a r e n t s , i n c l u d i n g h i s m o t h e r ' s engagement r i n g , g r a n d m o t h e r ' s engagement r i n g , mother's diamond/ruby r i n g , mother's emerald r i n g , and f a t h e r ' s diamond c l u s t e r r i n g . "4. Automobiles owned prior to marriage, i n c l u d i n g BMW a u t o m o b i l e [and] F o r d E x p l o r e r . "5. Home, r e a l e s t a t e , a n d f u r n i s h i n g s l o c a t e d t h e r e i n , l o c a t e d at [the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e ] . "6. A l l p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y a n d b e l o n g i n g s owned by [ t h e husband] p r i o r t o t h e m a r r i a g e o f t h e parties." On May 5, 2009, t h e t r i a l that the antenuptial by the husband consideration and court entered The t r i a l and that the wife further for t h e agreement p r i n c i p l e s governing court finding a g r e e m e n t was " v o l u n t a r i l y e n t e r e d r e a s o n a b l e from t h e [ w i f e ] ' s p o i n t under g e n e r a l an o r d e r good was and fair, valuable just o f v i e w so a s t o be antenuptial and valid agreements." held " t h a t t h e a n t e n u p t i a l agreement p r o v i d e s i n r e l e v a n t p a r t t h a t i n t h e event o f 'the g r a n t i n g o f a f i n a l d i v o r c e d e c r e e , [ t h e w i f e ] s h a l l have no r i g h t t o any c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e e s t a t e o f [ t h e husband] b a s e d on s p o u s a l or m a r i t a l r i g h t s i n c l u d i n g , but not limited t o , maintenance, support or property settlements, by reason o f o r on account of 10 into 2091016 d i s s o l u t i o n of the marriage "The a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t f u r t h e r p r o v i d e s , i n Exhibit A, certain specific property t o be ' r e t a i n e d ' by [ t h e husband], i n d i v i d u a l l y , w i t h o u t any c l a i m s b y [ t h e w i f e ] . "The a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e property r e t a i n e d b y t h e [husband] w i t h o u t any c l a i m s b y t h e [ w i f e ] i s as f o l l o w s : "[List of property identified i n E x h i b i t A o f t h e a n t e n u p t i a l agreement, s e t f o r t h above.] " I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , c o n s i d e r e d ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED t h a t t h e a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t d a t e d December 28, 1998, i s v a l i d a n d e n f o r c e a b l e a n d t h e [ w i f e ] h a s no c l a i m f o r a l i m o n y o r a g a i n s t t h o s e items i d e n t i f i e d i n E x h i b i t A of the a n t e n u p t i a l agreement as s e t o u t above." The w i f e filed a motion t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e o r d e r f i n d i n g t h e a n t e n u p t i a l agreement v a l i d and e n f o r c e a b l e , and, a f t e r conducting a hearing, motion. the t r i a l A t r a n s c r i p t of that hearing that the wife court denied i n the record that indicates argued only that the a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t was i n v a l i d b e c a u s e she h a d s i g n e d i t u n d e r d u r e s s . On A u g u s t 25, 2009, stated: the t r i a l court entered an o r d e r that "The j u d g m e n t d a t e d t h e 5 t h o f May, 2009, i s h e r e b y deemed t o be a 11 2091016 [f]inal [ o ] r d e r f r o m w h i c h an a p p e a l subsequently indication filed a notice According a final indication this to the case-action court. but appeal 1 The w i f e there is 2 summary, t h e c a s e was s e t on J a n u a r y 5, 2010; h o w e v e r , t h e r e i n the record an o r d e r that no f r o m t h e May hearing c o n d u c t e d on t h a t d a t e . entered appeal, i n the record that the wife's 2009 j u d g m e n t was e v e r b e f o r e for of c a n be t a k e n . " a trial or a i s no hearing On F e b r u a r y 16, 2010, t h e t r i a l was court that stated: "The c o u r t was u n d e r t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h e p a r t i e s were g o i n g t o b r i n g an o r d e r f o r t h e c o u r t ' s r e v i e w and c o n s i d e r a t i o n s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e J a n u a r y 5, 2010, h e a r i n g and t h e c o u r t has not been p r e s e n t e d w i t h same. The c o u r t r e s p e c t f u l l y r e q u e s t s A l t h o u g h i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t was a t t e m p t i n g t o c e r t i f y t h e May 5, 2009, j u d g m e n t as a f i n a l j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s a t t e m p t e d c e r t i f i c a t i o n was i n v a l i d b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s p u r p o r t e d c e r t i f i c a t i o n " n e i t h e r c i t e d R u l e 54(b) n o r u s e d t h e l a n g u a g e o f R u l e 5 4 ( b ) . " B l y t h e v. B l y t h e , 76 So. 2d 1018, 1020 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ( d i s m i s s i n g an a p p e a l from a n o n f i n a l judgment a f t e r d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t had f a i l e d t o e n t e r a v a l i d R u l e 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n ) . 1 We n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t , e v e n i f t h e w i f e h a d p u r s u e d h e r a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t , we w o u l d have been r e q u i r e d t o d i s m i s s the w i f e ' s appeal as h a v i n g b e e n t a k e n from a n o n f i n a l judgment because t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t p r o p e r l y c e r t i f y t h e May 5, 2009, j u d g m e n t as a f i n a l j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. See s u p r a n o t e d 1, and B l y t h e v. B l y t h e , 976 So. 2d 1018, 1020 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) . 2 12 2091016 t h a t i t be p r o v i d e d w i t h same w i t h i n 7 d a y s t o a v o i d having to s e t t h i s matter f o r hearing again." The w i f e ' s a t t o r n e y , on F e b r u a r y 25, 2010, f i l e d a m o t i o n for leave t o withdraw, a l l e g e d l y a t the request A f t e r t h e m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w was g r a n t e d , filed a n o t i c e o f a p p e a r a n c e on b e h a l f of the wife. a different attorney of the wife on M a r c h 12, 2010. The same d a y , t h e w i f e f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r t e m p o r a r y custody and f o r a pendente trial c o u r t had n o t e n t e r e d child support, despite alleging f o r an that agreement, order hearing, alleging that the a temporary award o f custody the fact p e n d i n g s i n c e J u l y 2007. motion lite that the matter had been On t h e same d a y , t h e w i f e voiding the antenuptial or filed a agreement, she h a d b e e n u n d e r d u r e s s when she s i g n e d t h e that she h a d n o t b e e n adequately advised of the h u s b a n d ' s a s s e t s when she s i g n e d t h e a g r e e m e n t , t h a t she d i d not have i n d e p e n d e n t k n o w l e d g e o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s a s s e t s she signed t h e agreement, and t h a t the p r o v i s i o n s a g r e e m e n t were c o n f l i c t i n g a n d a m b i g u o u s . t h e same d a y , e n t e r e d an o r d e r to when of the The t r i a l c o u r t , on s t a t i n g t h a t the wife's motion v o i d t h e a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t was moot a n d t h a t t h e " c o u r t has a l r e a d y h e a r d t h e f a c t s o f t h i s case and has d i r e c t e d t h e a t t o r n e y f o r t h e [husband] t o d r a f t an o r d e r . I t i s the understanding of the court that 13 2091016 t h e d e c r e e was p r e p a r e d by [ t h e h u s b a n d ' s a t t o r n e y ] and s u b m i t t e d t o [ t h e w i f e ' s f o r m e r a t t o r n e y ] f o r h i s r e v i e w and t h a t [ t h e w i f e ' s f o r m e r a t t o r n e y ] f a i l e d t o f o l l o w t h r o u g h w i t h same. The c o u r t a w a i t s t h e f i n a l d e c r e e f o r t h e c o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n and r e v i e w and i f n o t r e c e i v e d by t h e c o u r t w i t h i n 7 d a y s t h i s c a s e w i l l be d i s m i s s e d . " On March divorcing 31, the the p a r t i e s on temperament and The 2010, an trial the grounds irretrievable p a r t i e s were a w a r d e d j o i n t and the child, wife was subject specifically awarded to set legal the month, insurance and wife coverage specifically 2010 the was incorporated the child, custody of the rights as husband was visitation The i n t h e amount o f $250.56 to child. May marriage. of t h e i r judgment. the judgment maintain The 2009 o r d e r health- trial into court the 19, 2010, the w i f e filed p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P. had taken place on January 5, The a postjudgment motion wife alleged that 2010, that she had e n t e r e d i n t o a s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e h u s b a n d , and she March judgment. On A p r i l trial custody required for a i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y of physical o r d e r e d t o pay t h e w i f e c h i l d s u p p o r t a of husband's in entered breakdown of the primary the forth court had relevant evidence to 14 present to the trial no not that court 2091016 r e l a t e d t o d e t e r m i n i n g t h e grounds f o r t h e d i v o r c e and r e l a t e d to i s s u e s of custody, property motion, visitation, distribution. the wife c h i l d support, At the hearing objected alimony, and on h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t to the fact that t h e husband's a t t o r n e y h a d p r e s e n t e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i t h a d r a f t o r d e r when t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d n o t h e a r d any e v i d e n c e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the w i f e a r g u e d t h a t t h e husband had been awarded " v e r y v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d without best interests of the c h i l d , income a t t r i b u t e d Guidelines form r e l a t e d to the a n d she d i s p u t e d t h e amount o f t o t h e h u s b a n d on t h e CS-42 filed by t h e husband d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d . antenuptial any e v i d e n c e shortly Child-Support before citing the language i n the agreement t h a t says t h a t " [ a ] n y p r o p e r t y , r e a l , considered joint the The w i f e a l s o a r g u e d t h a t t h e a g r e e m e n t was a m b i g u o u s , or mixed a c q u i r e d liberal" after the date property unless of s a i d marriage personal, shall agreed t o i n w r i t i n g be " The w i f e f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t t h e r e were p r o p e r t y i s s u e s t h a t had n o t been a d d r e s s e d i n t h e j u d g m e n t a n d t h a t t h e r e was a t l e a s t one p i e c e o f r e a l p r o p e r t y t h a t was j o i n t l y owned b y t h e 15 2091016 parties. The w i f e a r g u e d t h a t , a c c o r d i n g 3 agreement, t h e t r i a l property At and after their marriage f o r distribution. the hearing testified 2010, c o u r t w o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o c o n s i d e r t h e t h e p a r t i e s had a c q u i r e d equitable to the antenuptial that on h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t on t h e d a t e set for t r i a l , motion, the i . e . , January she came t o t h e c o u r t h o u s e f o r t r i a l 5, and h e r a t t o r n e y t h e husband's a t t o r n e y a t t e m p t e d t o s e t t l e t h e case. s t a t e d that the p a r t i e s d i d not reach wife She an a g r e e m e n t , t h a t she n e v e r went i n s i d e t h e c o u r t r o o m , t h a t she n e v e r s p o k e t o t h e t r i a l - c o u r t j u d g e , t h a t she n e v e r p r e s e n t e d t h a t she d i d n o t o f f e r any e v i d e n c e . had any t e s t i m o n y , a n d She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she accumulated evidence r e l a t e d t o her case, t h a t she w a n t e d the t r i a l - c o u r t judge t o hear i t , and t h a t h e r former a t t o r n e y had told her that another hearing The attorney to finalize husband argued she was g o i n g after t o come b a c k f o r the divorce. d i d not present that, t o have any the t r i a l testimony, court ruled but h i s on t h e The w i f e s u b m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e a c o p y o f a w a r r a n t y d e e d , d a t e d M a r c h 24, 2004, t h a t c o n v e y e d t i t l e t o a p i e c e o f p r o p e r t y i n S o u t h s i d e t o t h e husband and t h e w i f e j o i n t l y w i t h a r i g h t of s u r v i v o r s h i p . 3 16 2091016 validity of the antenuptial i s s u e s were c u s t o d y , that custody 2010, and the only remaining v i s i t a t i o n , and c h i l d s u p p o r t . He a r g u e d a n d v i s i t a t i o n i s s u e s were r e s o l v e d on J a n u a r y 5, that affidavits. the p a r t i e s only needed to submit income The r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e h u s b a n d s u b m i t t e d CS-42 C h i l d - S u p p o r t The agreement, Guidelines a f o r m on M a r c h 29, 2010. t r i a l court subsequently e n t e r e d an o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e w i f e ' s postjudgment m o t i o n , and t h e w i f e t i m e l y a p p e a l e d . On a p p e a l , erred as a the wife matter of contends law when (1) t h a t the t r i a l i t determined a n t e n u p t i a l agreement i s v a l i d and e n f o r c e a b l e ; if t h e a n t e n u p t i a l agreement trial the (2) t h a t , e v e n and e n f o r c e a b l e , the c o u r t e r r e d by denying h e r postjudgment motion because the t r i a l court f a i l e d t o conduct a t r i a l after determining and i s valid that court (3) t h a t rendered The on i s s u e s remaining t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e a n t e n u p t i a l agreement; the t r i a l court's errors i n this case have t h e M a r c h 2010 j u d g m e n t n o n f i n a l . wife argues t h a t the t r i a l the p a r t i e s ' j o i n t l y h e l d p r o p e r t y , court's f a i l u r e to divide i t s f a i l u r e t o d i v i d e the p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l d e b t s , a n d i t s f a i l u r e t o r u l e on h e r r e q u e s t for an attorney's fee renders 17 t h e judgment nonfinal. We 2091016 disagree. T h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o adjudicate a claim f o r attorney's j u d g m e n t n o n f i n a l , see M o r r i s o n 1053 does v. M o r r i s o n , not render 1 So. 3d a 1052, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) , and we have a l s o h e l d t h a t a t r i a l court's failure to specifically j o i n t l y owned p r o p e r t y the fees address m a r i t a l debts i n a d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t does n o t render j u d g m e n t n o n f i n a l , see C l e m e n t s v. C l e m e n t s , 990 383, 395 or So. 2d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . The h u s b a n d c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e M a r c h 2010 j u d g m e n t i s due t o be a f f i r m e d b e c a u s e , he s a y s , any a c t i o n i n h e r a p p e a l antenuptial agreement valid and enforces 5, o f t h e May valid court c o r r e c t l y concluded enforceable, (1) t h e w i f e f a i l e d t o t a k e 2009 o r d e r and e n f o r c e a b l e , finding (2) t h e the trial t h a t the a n t e n u p t i a l agreement and an a g r e e m e n t e n t e r e d (3) the March 2010 i n t o by t h e p a r t i e s on was judgment January 2010. Initially, 2010 final we note t h a t , before j u d g m e n t , t h e w i f e was a r g u e s , by t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s May the entry n o t bound, of the March as t h e h u s b a n d 2009 d e t e r m i n a t i o n that the a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t i s v a l i d a n d e n f o r c e a b l e b e c a u s e t h e May 2009 o r d e r was n e v e r p r o p e r l y c e r t i f i e d b y t h e t r i a l 18 c o u r t as 2091016 a f i n a l , appealable Civ. P. See supra 976 So. 2d 1018, Schneider (Ala. Co., n o t e s 1 and 1020 2; (Ala. see Civ. also Blythe App. So. pertaining 2d 1056, 1061 to a t r i a l ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) , and 2d 753, court's order purporting The 754 Ins. requirements to c e r t i f y trial a court's 2009 d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t i s v a l i d and e n f o r c e a b l e d i d n o t become f i n a l u n t i l i t was i n t o t h e M a r c h 2010 issues concerning antenuptial The the because, f i n a l judgment. the agreement consider those that (discussing So. the R. Blythe, Hanner v. M e t r o Bank & P r o t e c t i v e L i f e j u d g m e n t as f i n a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) ) . May v. 2007) N a t ' l C a r r i e r s , I n c . v. T i n n e y , 776 2 0 0 0 ) , and 952 judgment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . validity in a a r g u m e n t s on she says, have to c o u n s e l , and c o u r t e r r e d by is testimony signed opportunity motion, of we the will appeal. u n d e r d u r e s s when she the enforceability postjudgment agreement (1) h e r Because the w i f e r a i s e d and w i f e argues t h a t the t r i a l antenuptial incorporated the obtain valid and concluding enforceable indicated that she was did not agreement, (2) she the of independent advice (3) t h e h u s b a n d f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e f u l l d i s c l o s u r e of the e x i s t e n c e and/or v a l u e of h i s a s s e t s . 19 We note t h a t the 2091016 t r i a l court's determination v a l i d and e n f o r c e a b l e , after t h a t t h e a n t e n u p t i a l agreement i s i n s o f a r as t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n the presentation of ore tenus evidence, was made i s presumed c o r r e c t a n d w i l l be r e v e r s e d o n l y i f i t i s u n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e and p l a i n l y So. 3d 1222, 389). a n d p a l p a b l y wrong. Ex p a r t e Brown, 26 1225 ( A l a . 2009) ( q u o t i n g C l e m e n t s , 990 So. 2d a t Moreover, " ' i n t h e absence of s p e c i f i c findings of f a c t , an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l assume t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t made those f i n d i n g s necessary t o support i t s judgment, u n l e s s f i n d i n g s w o u l d be c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . ' " I d . 990 (quoting Clements, So. 2d a t 3 9 0 ) . "Alabama l a w h a s l o n g h e l d t h a t a n t e n u p t i a l agreements a r e g e n e r a l l y e n f o r c e a b l e i n e q u i t y , b u t '[b]ecause of t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e two p a r t i e s , s u c h c o n t r a c t s a r e s c r u t i n i z e d b y t h e courts to determine their justice and r e a s o n a b l e n e s s . ' A l l i s o n v. S t e v e n s , 269 A l a . 288, 291, 112 So. 2d 4 5 1 , 453 ( 1 9 5 9 ) . See a l s o R u z i c v. R u z i c , 549 So. 2d 72 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; A l a . Code 1975, § 30-4-9 ('The h u s b a n d a n d w i f e may c o n t r a c t w i t h e a c h o t h e r , b u t a l l c o n t r a c t s i n t o w h i c h t h e y may e n t e r a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e r u l e s o f l a w as t o c o n t r a c t s b y and between persons standing i n confidential relations.'). " I n A l l i s o n , t h [ e A l a b a m a Supreme] C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t t h e p r o p o n e n t o f an a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t h a s "'the burden of showing that the c o n s i d e r a t i o n was a d e q u a t e a n d t h a t t h e entire t r a n s a c t i o n was f a i r , j u s t and 20 such 2091016 e q u i t a b l e from the [other p a r t y ' s ] p o i n t of v i e w o r t h a t t h e a g r e e m e n t was f r e e l y and v o l u n t a r i l y entered i n t o by t h e [other p a r t y ] w i t h competent independent a d v i c e and f u l l k n o w l e d g e o f [ t h e o t h e r p a r t y ' s ] i n t e r e s t i n t h e e s t a t e and i t s a p p r o x i m a t e value.' "269 Ala. added)." Id. at at 291, 112 So. 2d at 452 (emphasis 1225-26. A f t e r a r e v i e w o f t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d and i n l i g h t of our trial standard court of could review have on appeal, concluded that we conclude the s i g n e d the a n t e n u p t i a l agreement. A l t h o u g h wife that voluntarily the w i f e presented e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t she b e l i e v e d t h a t she w o u l d n o t had a place the agreement, t h e r e told her to l i v e that w i t h her she was and children no indication her children i f she had t h a t the would the not have signed husband be had immediately r e q u i r e d t o v a c a t e h i s home i f she d i d n o t s i g n t h e a g r e e m e n t . Moreover, there h u s b a n d had wife's was filed living an to became sign aware indication the of any the the wife's custody husband. based In former on the short, the e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e r e was antenuptial the that a c t i o n to modify arrangement w i t h w i f e d i d not present need no agreement 21 agreement in order shortly to after prevent a she losing 2091016 custody of her We also determined receiving supra, children. conclude that the competent our that wife the had signed independent supreme trial court the advice. In Ex a not had after parte Brown, trial court's d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t an a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t was v a l i d , t h e w i f e ' s c l a i m t h a t she had have agreement affirmed court could despite t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o meet w i t h h e r a t t o r n e y b e f o r e she s i g n e d t h e a g r e e m e n t , b e c a u s e t h e agreement i t s e l f , the wife was independent w h i c h was acting legal voluntarily counsel. p r e s e n t case, the w i f e she had s i g n e d by Id. at and the wife, under 1227. stated the advice Likewise, b e e n a d v i s e d by that have certification concluded independent that in of the s i g n e d the agreement t h a t s t a t e d t h a t independent counsel and t h a t she been i n f o r m e d of the l e g a l e f f e c t s of the agreement. on that from the the wife, wife had the trial Relying court received had could competent advice. Finally, the w i f e contends t h a t the a n t e n u p t i a l agreement s h o u l d be u n e n f o r c e a b l e b e c a u s e t h e a g r e e m e n t d i d n o t "full disclosure" court has of required the only husband's assets. that party 22 the provide However, against whom "this the 2091016 agreement full i s being enforced have a g e n e r a l knowledge, o f the o t h e r ' s 694 So. 2d 1360, 1363 v. B a r n h i l l , 1987)). The had d a t e d e s t a t e . " L e m a s t e r v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 386 So. 2d 749, 752 W o o l w i n e v. W o o l w i n e , 519 knowledge, not a 1996) (citing ( A l a . C i v . App. So. 2d 1347, 1350 Dutton, Barnhill 1 9 8 0 ) , and ( A l a . C i v . App. r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e h u s b a n d and t h e w i f e f o r approximately were m a r r i e d , one and a h a l f y e a r s b e f o r e they and t h e w i f e does n o t c o n t e n d t h a t she d i d n o t have a g e n e r a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s e s t a t e . The wife, other than citing a case setting forth h u s b a n d ' s b u r d e n o f p r o o f as s t a t e d i n Ex p a r t e Brown, the supra, h a s n o t c i t e d any a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t h e r argument t h a t t h e antenuptial enforced signed should not be t h e agreement under d u r e s s , independent fully agreement legal counsel, d i s c l o s e h i s assets Rule 28(a)(10), cite a u t h o r i t y i n support appeal). A l a . R. because b e c a u s e she d i d n o t have or because the husband f a i l e d i n the a n t e n u p t i a l agreement. App. P. (requiring that the t r i a l to See an a p p e l l a n t t o o f h i s o r h e r a r g u m e n t s made B e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e she on c o u r t c o u l d have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t the w i f e had v o l u n t a r i l y s i g n e d t h e agreement, w i t h i n d e p e n d e n t a d v i c e , and w i t h a g e n e r a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e 23 2091016 husband's estate, judgment c o n c l u d i n g and we a f f i r m that that part of the t r i a l the a n t e n u p t i a l agreement court's is valid enforceable. The w i f e also argues that the terms of the a g r e e m e n t a r e ambiguous b e c a u s e , she s a y s , agreement in direct the p a r t i e s ' a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t i s ambiguous i s a q u e s t i o n of law, which r e v i e w de n o v o . (Ala. conflict. p r o v i s i o n s i n the Whether we are antenuptial See Meyer v. M e y e r , 952 So. 2d 384, 391 C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . "To d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t i s a m b i g u o u s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t was r e q u i r e d t o r e v i e w the agreement t o d e t e r m i n e i f '"the i n t e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s c [ o u l d ] be f a i r l y and r e a s o n a b l y g l e a n e d f r o m t h e f o u r c o r n e r s o f t h e document."' S t a c e y v. S a u n d e r s , 437 So. 2d 1230, 1234 ( A l a . 1983) ( q u o t i n g S c h m i d t v. L a d n e r C o n s t r . Co., 370 So. 2d 970, 972 / 7\ 1 1m n\\ (Ala. 1979)) "The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a p r o v i s i o n i n an a n t e n u p t i a l agreement, l i k e the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of any p r o v i s i o n i n any c o n t r a c t , i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t . L a n e y v. L a n e y , 833 So. 2d 644, 646 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . " Peden v. Peden, 972 So. 2d 106, 110 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) . "An a g r e e m e n t t h a t by i t s t e r m s i s p l a i n and f r e e f r o m a m b i g u i t y must be e n f o r c e d as w r i t t e n . J o n e s v. J o n e s , 722 So. 2d 768 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) . An a m b i g u i t y e x i s t s i f t h e agreement i s s u s c e p t i b l e t o more t h a n one m e a n i n g . V a i n r i b v. Downey, 565 So. 2d 647 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1990) . However, i f o n l y one reasonable meaning clearly emerges, then the 24 2091016 agreement is unambiguous. Id. Finally, if a p r o v i s i o n o f an a g r e e m e n t i s c e r t a i n and c l e a r , i t i s the duty of the t r i a l c o u r t t o determine i t s m e a n i n g , and t h e c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s a f f o r d e d a h e a v y p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s and w i l l n o t be disturbed unless i t i s c l e a r l y erroneous. Id." R.G. v. G.G., 771 So. Furthermore, a court will 2d 490, 494 ( A l a . C i v . App. "Alabama a p p e l l a t e not look beyond the courts four 2000). have s t a t e d corners of a that written i n s t r u m e n t u n l e s s the i n s t r u m e n t c o n t a i n s l a t e n t a m b i g u i t i e s . " Judge v. J u d g e , 14 So. also Meyer v. 3d 162, Meyer, 952 165 So. d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n l a t e n t and The wife antenuptial with the argues only agreement, last quoted a n t e n u p t i a l agreement. the The 2d at patent that sentence of ( A l a . C i v . App. the 391 2009). (discussing the ambiguities). second paragraph above, is in direct of paragraph l a b e l e d "1." second paragraph i n the in or free, purposes of ... by divorce either [sic] ... , f r o m any shall claim be of [the t h a t may t h a n as s e t out states that owned acquired "[a]ny a f t e r the The last property, personal, d a t e o f s a i d m a r r i a g e s h a l l be 25 other sentence of paragraph real, or for wife], a r i s e by r e a s o n o f t h e i r c o n t e m p l a t e d m a r r i a g e , herein." the agreement now acquired the conflict s t a t e s t h a t the husband " d e s i r e s t h a t a l l p r o p e r t y hereafter See "1." mixed, considered 2091016 joint property parties." herein," that We unless agreed to i n w r i t i n g , signed note t h a t the language, "other by both t h a n as s e t o u t i n the second p a r a g r a p h of the agreement i n d i c a t e s parts of the paragraph may c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e h u s b a n d ' s d e s i r e t o keep " a l l p r o p e r t y now owned o r h e r e a f t e r wife]." shall agreement acquired following ... that f r e e f r o m any The p a r a g r a p h l a b e l e d " 1 . " p r o v i d e s retain " a l l rights identified i n the Exhibit but also after the A, acquired considered to agreement j o i n t property. t h a t the his property," the property as specifically date c l a i m of the states parties Therefore, husband which set that [the forth any married was in property shall be because of the p r o v i s o i n t h e second p a r a g r a p h o f the agreement, s e t f o r t h above, c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p a r t s o f t h e a g r e e m e n t c i t e d by we the w i f e make t h e a g r e e m e n t a m b i g u o u s . The wife does not a n t e n u p t i a l agreement, t h e May argue that w h i c h was paragraph nine c i t e d by t h e t r i a l of the court i n 2009 o r d e r t o s u p p o r t i t s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e w i f e d i d n o t have a r i g h t t o a l i m o n y , i s a m b i g u o u s . has n o t a r g u e d t h a t i s s u e on a p p e a l , v. C u l l m a n - J e f f e r s o n Counties Gas 26 Because the i t i s w a i v e d . See D i s t . , 864 wife Tucker So. 2d 317, 319 2091016 (Ala. 2003) ( q u o t i n g Asam v. D e v e r e a u x , 686 So. 2d 1222, (Ala. C i v . App. 1996), c i t i n g 1224 i n t u r n B o s h e l l v. K e i t h , 418 So. 2d 89 ( A l a . 1982)) ("'When an a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o p r o p e r l y argue an issue, considered.'"). divorce that issue is and we Accordingly, waived affirm will that not part of judgment t h a t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t p a r a g r a p h n i n e the of the a n t e n u p t i a l agreement c o n s t i t u t e d a w a i v e r o f t h e w i f e ' s to right alimony. The w i f e a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n she be h a d no c l a i m t o t h e p r o p e r t y listed a n t e n u p t i a l agreement d i d n o t a d e q u a t e l y i n E x h i b i t A of the i d e n t i f y the property t h a t she d i d n o t have a c l a i m t o b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l not conduct a hearing to allow the parties above, the agreement clearly court d i d to p r o p e r t y t h a t was a c q u i r e d a f t e r t h e m a r r i a g e . discussed identify We a g r e e . provides that property acquired a f t e r the date the p a r t i e s married considered should have present after should property. conducted evidence acquired court joint regarding the date have, Accordingly, a hearing what, so t h a t the considering 27 trial i f any, p r o p e r t y the any court could had and t h e entirety As s h a l l be the p a r t i e s the p a r t i e s married, after that of been trial the 2091016 antenuptial agreement, d e t e r m i n e d the p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y . so, the divorce consideration joint property, with i n s t r u c t i o n s to We failing all the custody, proper d i s p o s i t i o n Because the t r i a l j u d g m e n t , i n s o f a r as full proceedings the of i s due the i t was evidence t o be the consistent with this entered regarding reversed trial court f a i l e d and the court to the remaining issues visitation, and child without parties' conduct further opinion. to consider before do c a u s e remanded a l s o agree w i t h the w i f e t h a t the t r i a l to conduct a hearing to of the court erred by evidence r e l a t e d to trial support. court, On such appeal, as the p a r t i e s d i s p u t e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f an a g r e e m e n t t h a t a l l e g e d l y s e t t l e d these issues. no i n the indication agreement. Willis, the 45 divorce We So. However, as t h e w i f e a r g u e s , t h e r e i s r e c o r d t h a t the p a r t i e s entered discussed 3d 347 judgment incorporated We 2010). a a g r e e m e n t was an in Willis circumstances ( A l a . C i v . App. agreement, but the p a r t i a l record. similar into v. In t h a t "partial" settlement not s e t f o r t h i n the stated: "The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no w r i t t e n d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' p a r t i a l s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t , and an o r a l s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t i s v a l i d and e n f o r c e a b l e ' o n l y i f i t i s made i n open c o u r t o r d u r i n g a p r e t r i a l 28 case, 2091016 conference.' Contractor Success Group, Inc. v. S e r v i c e T h r u s t Org., I n c . , 681 So. 2d 212, 215 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . T h i s c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d : "'All settlement agreements entered i n t o by a t t o r n e y s and o c c u r r i n g a t the trial-court level are governed by § 3 4 - 3 - 2 1 , A l a . Code 1975. Ex p a r t e S i m s , 627 So. 2d 380, 382 (Ala. 1993). To be e f f e c t i v e u n d e r § 3 4 - 3 - 2 1 , an a g r e e m e n t must be made i n w r i t i n g o r e n t e r e d i n t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e c o u r t . Holmes v. S a n d e r s , 729 So. 2d 314, 316 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ; and Ex p a r t e K i e l y , 579 So. 2d 1366, 1367 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . ' " P r o f f i t t v. C o c h r a n , 742 App. 1999)." Id. at We be So. 2d 188, 189 (Ala. Civ. 348. c o n c l u d e d i n W i l l i s t h a t " [ t ] h e judgment reversed because i t [did] not properly [was] due document i n c o r p o r a t e t h e a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s . " I d . a t 349. present case, i t i s unclear an a g r e e m e n t . may Regardless, have b e e n e n t e r e d whether the p a r t i e s ever to and In the reached we c o n c l u d e t h a t any a g r e e m e n t t h a t i n t o by t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e p r e s e n t case i s n o t v a l i d and b i n d i n g b e c a u s e t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e a g r e e m e n t was the minutes of the On court appeal, did not the trial reduced to w r i t i n g or e n t e r e d c o u r t . § 34-3-21; W i l l i s , h u s b a n d does n o t conduct an ore 29 tenus dispute hearing in supra. that the trial on any issue 2091016 presented i n the divorce a c t i o n , other than t h e March h e a r i n g on t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t . Because t h e r e was no h e a r i n g c o n d u c t e d on a n y p e n d i n g i s s u e o t h e r the v a l i d i t y settlement o f t h e a n t e n u p t i a l agreement, w i t h o u t agreement t h e t r i a l d i v o r c e judgment d e t e r m i n i n g parties. the 4 divorce i n dispute the t r i a l evidence than a binding c o u r t h a d no b a s i s t o e n t e r a t h e r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s o f t h e See W i l l i s , 45 So. 3d a t 349 ("The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f issues within 2009 on t h o s e between court's the p a r t i e s would discretion issues."). have been i f i t had r e c e i v e d any Accordingly, judgment, i n s o f a r as i t a d d r e s s e s we reverse the issues other than the v a l i d i t y and e n f o r c e a b i l i t y o f t h e a n t e n u p t i a l agreement, and t h e c a u s e i s remanded w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e t r i a l to conduct a proceeding AFFIRMED that i s consistent with this I N PART; REVERSED court opinion. I N PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, JJ., As n o t e d a b o v e , t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s a CS-42 C h i l d - S u p p o r t G u i d e l i n e s f o r m t h a t was f i l l e d o u t b y t h e h u s b a n d . The w i f e , a t t h e h e a r i n g on h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , a r g u e d t h a t she was entitled t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e d i s p u t i n g t h e amount o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s g r o s s i n c o m e . We a g r e e . 4 30

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.